* [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more @ 2013-03-28 13:53 chaoting fan 2013-03-28 13:58 ` Myklebust, Trond 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: chaoting fan @ 2013-03-28 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trond.Myklebust; +Cc: linux-nfs the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more, mark it to be unused to avoid make warning. Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <fanchaoting@cn.fujitsu.com> --- net/sunrpc/cache.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c index 9afa439..efea2d9 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail *cd, struct cache_head *h) return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h); } -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct cache_head *h) +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *unused, struct cache_head *h) { if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags)) return -EAGAIN; -- 1.7.10.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more 2013-03-28 13:53 [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more chaoting fan @ 2013-03-28 13:58 ` Myklebust, Trond 2013-03-28 14:07 ` chaoting fan 2013-03-28 14:19 ` chaoting fan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Myklebust, Trond @ 2013-03-28 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: chaoting fan; +Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 21:53 +0800, chaoting fan wrote: > the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more, > mark it to be unused to avoid make warning. > > Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <fanchaoting@cn.fujitsu.com> > > --- > net/sunrpc/cache.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c > index 9afa439..efea2d9 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c > @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail > *cd, struct cache_head *h) > return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h); > } > > -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct > cache_head *h) > +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *unused, struct > cache_head *h) > { > if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags)) > return -EAGAIN; > -- 1.7.10.4 Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com www.netapp.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more 2013-03-28 13:58 ` Myklebust, Trond @ 2013-03-28 14:07 ` chaoting fan 2013-03-28 14:19 ` chaoting fan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: chaoting fan @ 2013-03-28 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Myklebust, Trond; +Cc: linux-nfs the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more. Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <fanchaoting@cn.fujitsu.com> --- net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail *cd, struct cache_head *h) return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h); } -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct cache_head *h) +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h) { if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags)) return -EAGAIN; @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail *detail, struct cache_head *h int rv; write_lock(&detail->hash_lock); - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); + rv = cache_is_valid(h); if (rv != -EAGAIN) { write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock); return rv; @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, long refresh_age, age; /* First decide return status as best we can */ - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); + rv = cache_is_valid(h); /* now see if we want to start an upcall */ refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh); @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, * Request was not deferred; handle it as best * we can ourselves: */ - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); + rv = cache_is_valid(h); if (rv == -EAGAIN) rv = -ETIMEDOUT; } -- 1.7.10.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more 2013-03-28 13:58 ` Myklebust, Trond 2013-03-28 14:07 ` chaoting fan @ 2013-03-28 14:19 ` chaoting fan 2013-05-15 13:48 ` J. Bruce Fields 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: chaoting fan @ 2013-03-28 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Myklebust, Trond; +Cc: linux-nfs > Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers. thanks ,here is the change patch. the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more. Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <fanchaoting@cn.fujitsu.com> --- net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail *cd, struct cache_head *h) return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h); } -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct cache_head *h) +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h) { if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags)) return -EAGAIN; @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail *detail, struct cache_head *h int rv; write_lock(&detail->hash_lock); - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); + rv = cache_is_valid(h); if (rv != -EAGAIN) { write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock); return rv; @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, long refresh_age, age; /* First decide return status as best we can */ - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); + rv = cache_is_valid(h); /* now see if we want to start an upcall */ refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh); @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, * Request was not deferred; handle it as best * we can ourselves: */ - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); + rv = cache_is_valid(h); if (rv == -EAGAIN) rv = -ETIMEDOUT; } -- 1.7.10.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more 2013-03-28 14:19 ` chaoting fan @ 2013-05-15 13:48 ` J. Bruce Fields 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: J. Bruce Fields @ 2013-05-15 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: chaoting fan; +Cc: Myklebust, Trond, linux-nfs I think this never got applied? Applying for 3.11.--b. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:19:45PM +0800, chaoting fan wrote: > > Why not just remove it altogether? There are only 3 callers. > > thanks ,here is the change patch. > > the cache_detail(*detail) in function cache_is_valid is unused any more. > > Signed-off-by: fanchaoting <fanchaoting@cn.fujitsu.com> > > --- > net/sunrpc/cache.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c > index 9afa439..adbbc19 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c > @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static int cache_make_upcall(struct cache_detail > *cd, struct cache_head *h) > return cd->cache_upcall(cd, h); > } > > -static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_detail *detail, struct > cache_head *h) > +static inline int cache_is_valid(struct cache_head *h) > { > if (!test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags)) > return -EAGAIN; > @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ static int try_to_negate_entry(struct cache_detail > *detail, struct cache_head *h > int rv; > > write_lock(&detail->hash_lock); > - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); > + rv = cache_is_valid(h); > if (rv != -EAGAIN) { > write_unlock(&detail->hash_lock); > return rv; > @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, > long refresh_age, age; > > /* First decide return status as best we can */ > - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); > + rv = cache_is_valid(h); > > /* now see if we want to start an upcall */ > refresh_age = (h->expiry_time - h->last_refresh); > @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ int cache_check(struct cache_detail *detail, > * Request was not deferred; handle it as best > * we can ourselves: > */ > - rv = cache_is_valid(detail, h); > + rv = cache_is_valid(h); > if (rv == -EAGAIN) > rv = -ETIMEDOUT; > } > -- > 1.7.10.4 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-05-15 13:48 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-03-28 13:53 [PATCH] sunrpc: the cache_detail in cache_is_valid is unused any more chaoting fan 2013-03-28 13:58 ` Myklebust, Trond 2013-03-28 14:07 ` chaoting fan 2013-03-28 14:19 ` chaoting fan 2013-05-15 13:48 ` J. Bruce Fields
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.